What about the Eastern Orthodox saints?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glorthac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glorthac

Guest
Forgive me if I say something stupid, but I’m trying to learn a thing or two about Eastern Catholicism.

So from what I’ve heard, many Eastern Catholic rites were once part of Eastern Orthodoxy, but broke away and became Eastern Catholics.

My question is, those who were once Eastern Orthodox but became Eastern Catholic, did you lose the Eastern Orthodox saints? Or did you keep them?

If you kept them, how do you reconcile them with Catholicism? Didn’t some of them speak negatively of Catholicism?
 
Glorthic,
There is one Eastern Catholic Church that never broke away from Rome. It is the Maronite Rite of Antioch.

As far as Orthodox Saints, i don’t believe they have elevted any since the great Sisim. All there Saints were our (the whole church) saints. When they broke away they kept their saints and never added any since. But if they did, because we consider the Eastern Orthodox as Apostolic, their saints would still retain the title, even if and when they choose to return to Rome. ala Melikite.
 
There are plenty of post schism saints that are officially venerated in eastern catholic churches. Such examples like Gregory palamas and seraphim of sarov.
 
As far as Orthodox Saints, i don’t believe they have elevted any since the great Sisim. All there Saints were our (the whole church) saints. When they broke away they kept their saints and never added any since.
No, that would make us Lutherans or Anglicans. rimshot
 
Glorthic,
There is one Eastern Catholic Church that never broke away from Rome. It is the Maronite Rite of Antioch.

As far as Orthodox Saints, i don’t believe they have elevted any since the great Sisim. All there Saints were our (the whole church) saints. When they broke away they kept their saints and never added any since. But if they did, because we consider the Eastern Orthodox as Apostolic, their saints would still retain the title, even if and when they choose to return to Rome. ala Melikite.
Wrong. Two, only one of which never broke contact: The Italo-Albanians (Greco-Byzantine Tradition).
 
Dear brother Aramis,
Wrong. Two, only one of which never broke contact: The Italo-Albanians (Greco-Byzantine Tradition).
I’ve always wondered about this. The EOC in Antioch seems to have always had a more ecumenical attitude towards the Church in Rome than the other EO. I know they were probably the last EO Church to go along with the schism perpetrated by Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert. It would be interesting to trace this line of “sympathizers for unity” within the Melkite Church.

Also, the Russian EO seems to have had a generally good relationship with Rome well beyond 1054.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Aramis,

I’ve always wondered about this. The EOC in Antioch seems to have always had a more ecumenical attitude towards the Church in Rome than the other EO. I know they were probably the last EO Church to go along with the schism perpetrated by Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert. It would be interesting to trace this line of “sympathizers for unity” within the Melkite Church.

Also, the Russian EO seems to have had a generally good relationship with Rome well beyond 1054.

Blessings,
Marduk
The Italo-albanians were under Rome, not Byzantium, from the 5th C. on, True, one antipope did try to suppress them for about 5 years, but they’ve always been in communion with the Pope.

The Russians were not even fully Christianized by 1050. Officially, Prince Vladimir had made Orthodoxy the state religion, but it was not yet fully penetrated. (Cultural penetration was about a century later.) And the Russian Church wasn’t autocephalous until the mid 1500’s.
 
The Roman rule with respect to Orthodox saints venerated by Eastern Churches coming into union with Rome is that they may all be kept save for those who have been vocally against Rome during their lives.

Thus, St Mark of Ephesus or the Athonite Martyrs of Zographou burned by the Emperor for refusing to come under Rome would not be acceptable for EC liturgical veneration.

Although Patriarch Photius has been villified in the West, he is making his way into the calendars of EC churches (and Fr. F. Dvornik’s work on him has helped in this process).

Sts Vladimir and Olha, for example, were canonized by the Orthodox Church but are honoured not only by EC churches but by Rome as well where in the Roman calendar they are listed under their baptismal names: Vasyl/Basil for Vladimir, Helen for Olha (and Romanus and David for Sts Boris and Hlib).

Rome has acknowledged the sainthood of St Gregory Palamas and some other Orthodox saints (especially St Seraphim of Sarov).

There are EC parishes that venerate all the Saints of Orthodoxy, even the newer saints as they are canonized (save for the exceptions noted above).

The Anglicans honour Blessed King Charles the Martyr as the only saint they’ve canonized since the Reformation. The convocations of York and Canterbury declared him a Martyr in the 17th century and established a feastday for him and office propers. January 30th was formerly a fast day for the sin of regicide.

The Anglicans also have local worthies whom they will title “Blessed” such as Nicholas Ferrar, William Laud, Lancelot Andrewes, William Law, Edward Pusey, James DeKoven and others. Anglicans will also often list in their calendars the names of English saints whose canonization processes were stalled and never completed such as King Henry VI, John Schorn of Buckingham and Richard FitzRalph of Dundalk.

(As an aside, Fr. John Schorn was known to work miraculous cures for the gout. His local veneration in the Middle Ages led to the creation of statuary of him pointing to a boot out of which a devil’s head was popping out. This was the origin of the toy, “Jack in the Box.”)

The form of commemoration of these will be different based on the “High, Middle and Low” Anglican church polity and traditions.

I understand that the Anglicans seeking union with Rome via the Ordinariates are calling on Rome to regularize their liturgical veneration of Bl. Charles, King and Martyr (and why shouldn’t it?).

Blessed John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox as well as other notable Anglican converts to Catholicism continued to privately venerate Bl. Charles the Martyr. Knox actually wrote a formal letter to Rome calling for the canonization of King Charles I (and King Henry VI). Veneration of both kings was a hallmark characteristic of the Oxford Movement and continued with RC converts from this movement.

I am myself a member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr.

Alex
 
The Roman rule with respect to Orthodox saints venerated by Eastern Churches coming into union with Rome is that they may all be kept save for those who have been vocally against Rome during their lives.

Thus, St Mark of Ephesus or the Athonite Martyrs of Zographou burned by the Emperor for refusing to come under Rome would not be acceptable for EC liturgical veneration.

Although Patriarch Photius has been villified in the West, he is making his way into the calendars of EC churches (and Fr. F. Dvornik’s work on him has helped in this process).

Sts Vladimir and Olha, for example, were canonized by the Orthodox Church but are honoured not only by EC churches but by Rome as well where in the Roman calendar they are listed under their baptismal names: Vasyl/Basil for Vladimir, Helen for Olha (and Romanus and David for Sts Boris and Hlib).

Rome has acknowledged the sainthood of St Gregory Palamas and some other Orthodox saints (especially St Seraphim of Sarov).

There are EC parishes that venerate all the Saints of Orthodoxy, even the newer saints as they are canonized (save for the exceptions noted above).

The Anglicans honour Blessed King Charles the Martyr as the only saint they’ve canonized since the Reformation. The convocations of York and Canterbury declared him a Martyr in the 17th century and established a feastday for him and office propers. January 30th was formerly a fast day for the sin of regicide.

The Anglicans also have local worthies whom they will title “Blessed” such as Nicholas Ferrar, William Laud, Lancelot Andrewes, William Law, Edward Pusey, James DeKoven and others. Anglicans will also often list in their calendars the names of English saints whose canonization processes were stalled and never completed such as King Henry VI, John Schorn of Buckingham and Richard FitzRalph of Dundalk.

(As an aside, Fr. John Schorn was known to work miraculous cures for the gout. His local veneration in the Middle Ages led to the creation of statuary of him pointing to a boot out of which a devil’s head was popping out. This was the origin of the toy, “Jack in the Box.”)

The form of commemoration of these will be different based on the “High, Middle and Low” Anglican church polity and traditions.

I understand that the Anglicans seeking union with Rome via the Ordinariates are calling on Rome to regularize their liturgical veneration of Bl. Charles, King and Martyr (and why shouldn’t it?).

Blessed John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox as well as other notable Anglican converts to Catholicism continued to privately venerate Bl. Charles the Martyr. Knox actually wrote a formal letter to Rome calling for the canonization of King Charles I (and King Henry VI). Veneration of both kings was a hallmark characteristic of the Oxford Movement and continued with RC converts from this movement.

I am myself a member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr.

Alex
I have seen icons of St. Mark of Ephesus

in quite a few Greek Catholic churches 😃 .
 
Those Eastern Catholics . . . can’t ever trust them to follow the rules . . . 🙂

There was a UGCC priest who, at one time, wanted to form a society under that patronage . . . wonder what his bishop would have said (maybe the bishop DID say something).

Where did you see icons of St Mark of Ephesus? Were they painted on the walls or just individual icons on display?

Alex
 
Those Eastern Catholics . . . can’t ever trust them to follow the rules . . . 🙂

There was a UGCC priest who, at one time, wanted to form a society under that patronage . . . wonder what his bishop would have said (maybe the bishop DID say something).

Where did you see icons of St Mark of Ephesus? Were they painted on the walls or just individual icons on display?

Alex
I saw 1 painted on the walls in a Melkite church…the others were portable icons in Ruthenian churches and 1 at Holy Transfiguration Ukrainian Catholic Monastery.
 
The Roman rule with respect to Orthodox saints venerated by Eastern Churches coming into union with Rome is that they may all be kept save for those who have been vocally against Rome during their lives.

Thus, St Mark of Ephesus or the Athonite Martyrs of Zographou burned by the Emperor for refusing to come under Rome would not be acceptable for EC liturgical veneration.

Although Patriarch Photius has been villified in the West, he is making his way into the calendars of EC churches (and Fr. F. Dvornik’s work on him has helped in this process).

Sts Vladimir and Olha, for example, were canonized by the Orthodox Church but are honoured not only by EC churches but by Rome as well where in the Roman calendar they are listed under their baptismal names: Vasyl/Basil for Vladimir, Helen for Olha (and Romanus and David for Sts Boris and Hlib).

Rome has acknowledged the sainthood of St Gregory Palamas and some other Orthodox saints (especially St Seraphim of Sarov).

There are EC parishes that venerate all the Saints of Orthodoxy, even the newer saints as they are canonized (save for the exceptions noted above).

The Anglicans honour Blessed King Charles the Martyr as the only saint they’ve canonized since the Reformation. The convocations of York and Canterbury declared him a Martyr in the 17th century and established a feastday for him and office propers. January 30th was formerly a fast day for the sin of regicide.

The Anglicans also have local worthies whom they will title “Blessed” such as Nicholas Ferrar, William Laud, Lancelot Andrewes, William Law, Edward Pusey, James DeKoven and others. Anglicans will also often list in their calendars the names of English saints whose canonization processes were stalled and never completed such as King Henry VI, John Schorn of Buckingham and Richard FitzRalph of Dundalk.

(As an aside, Fr. John Schorn was known to work miraculous cures for the gout. His local veneration in the Middle Ages led to the creation of statuary of him pointing to a boot out of which a devil’s head was popping out. This was the origin of the toy, “Jack in the Box.”)

The form of commemoration of these will be different based on the “High, Middle and Low” Anglican church polity and traditions.

I understand that the Anglicans seeking union with Rome via the Ordinariates are calling on Rome to regularize their liturgical veneration of Bl. Charles, King and Martyr (and why shouldn’t it?).

Blessed John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox as well as other notable Anglican converts to Catholicism continued to privately venerate Bl. Charles the Martyr. Knox actually wrote a formal letter to Rome calling for the canonization of King Charles I (and King Henry VI). Veneration of both kings was a hallmark characteristic of the Oxford Movement and continued with RC converts from this movement.

I am myself a member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr.

Alex
Oooh you’re very smart! Thx.
 
I saw 1 painted on the walls in a Melkite church…the others were portable icons in Ruthenian churches and 1 at Holy Transfiguration Ukrainian Catholic Monastery.
While that may raise some eyebrows, it is echt-ecumenical! We know that St Mark of Ephesus went to Florence as a unionist and wanted the Church to be one, once again.

But his minimal requirement for unity was that the Church of Rome remove the Filioque from its version of the Creed (he didn’t even expect Rome to formally pronounce against the Filioquist theology).

Ultimately, he defended his Church’s ancient theological position. At no time did the Church of Rome ever condemn him as a heretic or whatever either.

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top